|
Post by sanders on Sept 12, 2024 14:50:15 GMT
Mr Tester, I don't feel good. MT increasingly looking a GOP gain.. WV is an auto-flip (Manchin going). Dems would need TX or FL. FL has trended heavily Republican alas. It looks out of reach now. Miami's partisan primary voting was tied. Presidentially, Democrats won Montana in 1992. Republicans have constantly won it since. Keystone XL pipeline helped Tester before. Now that that's gone, he'll lose. I think Dems will win MT-1. It's trending their way quite honestly. Montana elected Conrad Burns in 2000. It's really not shifted like WV. That seat went red in 1956! As for Democrats in other states. Texas was 1988; Florida was 2012.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Sept 17, 2024 9:29:06 GMT
I think it's fair to say that, a) given how the Senate map and defences fell out this year, this was viewed as potentially a very bad set for the Dems and very good for the Reps; b) the Reps coming out with gains only in WV and MT (and I'm not yet convinced about the latter) is actually a really poor outcome for them. NV, AZ, OH and perhaps WI, should have been decent chances of gains. Top of the ticket is a drag, and their candidate choices have been poor.
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 17, 2024 9:43:22 GMT
I think it's fair to say that, a) given how the Senate map and defences fell out this year, this was viewed as potentially a very bad set for the Dems and very good for the Reps; b) the Reps coming out with gains only in WV and MT (and I'm not yet convinced about the latter) is actually a really poor outcome for them. NV, AZ, OH and perhaps WI, should have been decent chances of gains. Top of the ticket is a drag, and their candidate choices have been poor. I agree up to a point. In Nevada, they couldn't win in 2022 with Adam Laxalt, who was widely regarded as a decent candidate, despite winning the governorship. The Reid machine lives on in that state, and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who took over the state party in 2021 have been deposed. Arizona is demonstrably getting bluer, and if they wanted to have an easier time there, they should've persuaded Jeff Flake to run for re-election in 2018 and stay on, but they didn't. Unfortunately, they have a knack of nominating fruitcakes like Lake and Masters in Arizona. They should've run State Treasurer Kimberly Yee. Ohio is one where I'm inclined to see what you're saying. The Buckeye State has shifted rightward and there was a warning sign in 2022 when Vance only won by a Likely margin despite the state approaching safe GOP status in 2016 and 2020. The RSCC should've intervened a lot more in Ohio after that result. Wisconsin - I agree, but it's been a long time since the seat up this year has elected a Republican (but with presidential turnout they should be doing better). Still, Hovde is rich enough to self-fund, so he's probably the best they've got - Paul Ryan or Scott Walker might be doing a bit better but aren't interested. I think Democrats will hold the Senate to be honest, with either Montana or Texas providing the 50th Senate seat - I know it sounds crazy, but that would appear to be the direction of travel in TX, with even the Trump campaign conceding that Cruz "is in trouble" (source: Newswire). And I would say to McConnell, Trump, and the RSCC, partisan polarisation is only a bitch if you are.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 17, 2024 9:51:06 GMT
I think it's fair to say that, a) given how the Senate map and defences fell out this year, this was viewed as potentially a very bad set for the Dems and very good for the Reps; b) the Reps coming out with gains only in WV and MT (and I'm not yet convinced about the latter) is actually a really poor outcome for them. NV, AZ, OH and perhaps WI, should have been decent chances of gains. Top of the ticket is a drag, and their candidate choices have been poor. It does seem the way the Senate elections are going recently either party is destined to only have a narrow majority, and especially if Trump loses I think they’ll simply be happy to have that check on President Harris especially since that’s the sole chamber that deals with judicial and government official nominations
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 17, 2024 9:56:35 GMT
I think it's fair to say that, a) given how the Senate map and defences fell out this year, this was viewed as potentially a very bad set for the Dems and very good for the Reps; b) the Reps coming out with gains only in WV and MT (and I'm not yet convinced about the latter) is actually a really poor outcome for them. NV, AZ, OH and perhaps WI, should have been decent chances of gains. Top of the ticket is a drag, and their candidate choices have been poor. It does seem the way the Senate elections are going recently either party is destined to only have a narrow majority, and especially if Trump loses I think they’ll simply be happy to have that check on President Harris especially since that’s the sole chamber that deals with judicial and government official nominations They also will be relieved to prevent Schumer nuking the filibuster. They will block any SCOTUS picks should Thomas pass away (I hope he doesn't, of course). That said, I do wonder if Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski could be persuaded to vote for any of Harris's hypothetical SCOTUS picks if they're running again, and obviously, for the sake of bipartisanship which they both seem to support. I believe at leas tone of them will seek re-election (Susan Collins is only in her 70s as I understand it). I've actually met UK clients through my business whose parents voted for Susan Collins in Maine.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 17, 2024 10:00:47 GMT
I think it's fair to say that, a) given how the Senate map and defences fell out this year, this was viewed as potentially a very bad set for the Dems and very good for the Reps; b) the Reps coming out with gains only in WV and MT (and I'm not yet convinced about the latter) is actually a really poor outcome for them. NV, AZ, OH and perhaps WI, should have been decent chances of gains. Top of the ticket is a drag, and their candidate choices have been poor. I agree up to a point. In Nevada, they couldn't win in 2022 with Adam Laxalt, who was widely regarded as a decent candidate, despite winning the governorship. The Reid machine lives on in that state, and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who took over the state party in 2021 have been deposed. Arizona is demonstrably getting bluer, and if they wanted to have an easier time there, they should've persuaded Jeff Flake to run for re-election in 2018 and stay on, but they didn't. Unfortunately, they have a knack of nominating fruitcakes like Lake and Masters in Arizona. They should've run State Treasurer Kimberly Yee. Ohio is one where I'm inclined to see what you're saying. The Buckeye State has shifted rightward and there was a warning sign in 2022 when Vance only won by a Likely margin despite the state approaching safe GOP status in 2016 and 2020. The RSCC should've intervened a lot more in Ohio after that result. Wisconsin - I agree, but it's been a long time since the seat up this year has elected a Republican (but with presidential turnout they should be doing better). Still, Hovde is rich enough to self-fund, so he's probably the best they've got - Paul Ryan or Scott Walker might be doing a bit better but aren't interested. I think Democrats will hold the Senate to be honest, with either Montana or Texas providing the 50th Senate seat - I know it sounds crazy, but that would appear to be the direction of travel in TX, with even the Trump campaign conceding that Cruz "is in trouble" (source: Newswire). And I would say to McConnell, Trump, and the RSCC, partisan polarisation is only a bitch if you are. Mike Gallagher was their first choice in Wisconsin but he declined and ended up quitting politics altogether. There was probably some hope that Hovde could follow the Ron Johnson playbook of self funding a surprise gain but Tammy Baldwin is just too strong an incumbent and even when Biden was running she was clearly outrunning the top of the ticket. David McCormick was the leadership choice in Pennsylvania and they got him but Bob Casey similarly is very strong and has been outrunning the top of the ticket As I alluded to in a post above with current polarisation we’re probably in a spell where less Senate seats are likely to flip, even in a cycle more favourable to one party than the other
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 17, 2024 10:03:27 GMT
I agree up to a point. In Nevada, they couldn't win in 2022 with Adam Laxalt, who was widely regarded as a decent candidate, despite winning the governorship. The Reid machine lives on in that state, and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who took over the state party in 2021 have been deposed. Arizona is demonstrably getting bluer, and if they wanted to have an easier time there, they should've persuaded Jeff Flake to run for re-election in 2018 and stay on, but they didn't. Unfortunately, they have a knack of nominating fruitcakes like Lake and Masters in Arizona. They should've run State Treasurer Kimberly Yee. Ohio is one where I'm inclined to see what you're saying. The Buckeye State has shifted rightward and there was a warning sign in 2022 when Vance only won by a Likely margin despite the state approaching safe GOP status in 2016 and 2020. The RSCC should've intervened a lot more in Ohio after that result. Wisconsin - I agree, but it's been a long time since the seat up this year has elected a Republican (but with presidential turnout they should be doing better). Still, Hovde is rich enough to self-fund, so he's probably the best they've got - Paul Ryan or Scott Walker might be doing a bit better but aren't interested. I think Democrats will hold the Senate to be honest, with either Montana or Texas providing the 50th Senate seat - I know it sounds crazy, but that would appear to be the direction of travel in TX, with even the Trump campaign conceding that Cruz "is in trouble" (source: Newswire). And I would say to McConnell, Trump, and the RSCC, partisan polarisation is only a bitch if you are. Mike Gallagher was their first choice in Wisconsin but he declined and ended up quitting politics altogether. There was probably some hope that Hovde could follow the Ron Johnson playbook of self funding a surprise gain but Tammy Baldwin is just too strong an incumbent and even when Biden was running she was clearly outrunning the top of the ticket. David McCormick was the leadership choice in Pennsylvania and they got him but Bob Casey similarly is very strong and has been outrunning the top of the ticket As I alluded to in a post above with current polarisation we’re probably in a spell where less Senate seats are likely to flip, even in a cycle more favourable to one party than the other Yes. I believe the only realistic flips in 2026 if Harris are GA or ME. It will all depend on candidate choice, but I wouldn't;t be surprised if only Maine flips if Susan Collins retires of faces a strong Trump-style primary challenge like Paul LePage ("Trump before Trump"). There's a weird scenario where Trump orchestrates Bill Cassidy's ousting and John Bel Edwards wins there, but unless Republicans nominate David Duke (I don't see him winning - he may not even seek the Democratic nomination). Of interest in Louisiana is they have have ended their 50 years of having jungle primaries and will have partisan primaries for 2026 (which harms Cassidy).
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Sept 17, 2024 10:05:34 GMT
Darn, I just want to apologise for a wrong thread post. I was absolutely certain I was posting in Non-Presidential. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 17, 2024 10:15:13 GMT
Darn, I just want to apologise for a wrong thread post. I was absolutely certain I was posting in Non-Presidential. Sorry! I’ll do some moving
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 17, 2024 10:21:25 GMT
Anything to get out of posting the Waaagh score for last nights by-election..
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,290
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 17, 2024 12:25:27 GMT
Anything to get out of posting the Waaagh score for last nights by-election.. Tbf the normal practice in the past has been to wait until the entire week's business is concluded - it is called "Good Week Bad Week" after all
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 17, 2024 16:27:46 GMT
Missouri's 2nd (St Louis suburbs and some thinly-populated rural counties) could flip to the Democrats If Trump recesses further in St Louis County and surrounds. Ann Wagner is Chair of the Suburban Caucus or something similar, which is probably just as well since this seat is bolting leftwards. This was originally a 2012 gerrymander which shored up then Rep. William Lacy Clay. Democrats could now win a third Missouri seat, but it's a stretch to see them doing that. MO-02 and OH-10 seem like real stretch targets for Democrats but if they want a big House majority, these seats can and should be on they radar, along with the likes of MI-10.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 18, 2024 22:22:20 GMT
In relation to earlier discussion we’ve had here on this, it doesn’t sound like at the moment the Democrat leadership will consider abandoning Tester in Montana and try to offset a Senate loss there by pouring resources into Texas or Florida archive.is/YK8LN
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Sept 18, 2024 23:45:20 GMT
In relation to earlier discussion we’ve had here on this, it doesn’t sound like at the moment the Democrat leadership will consider abandoning Tester in Montana and try to offset a Senate loss there by pouring resources into Texas or Florida archive.is/YK8LNCampaigning in Montana is dirt cheap compared to Texas or Florida and given Tester previously having won tough races it makes almost zero sense for the DSCC to abandon him.
|
|